Thread: Is the SU-30MKI the worlds best fighter?

Originally Posted by highsea

USS- wrt RCS of MKI vs. standard SU-27/30, there is no reason to assume the MKI has any significant advantage. Russian technology in RA coatings is not particularly advanced by Western standards, and ceramic coatings on such places intakes and fans have yet to be proven or implemented in any real terms. The claims of "plasma stealth" and other such BS have already been debunked. The MKI also has some rather sizeable canards that the standard 27/30 doesn't have.

Sure by the same logic, the rafale has sizeable canards compared to the mirage, does that make it have a far greater rCS than the mirage? Nowhere have I said that the MKI has an advantage of smaller RCS, my point is that even though the RCS of the Rafale might be lower than the MKI, the MKI will not be at such a great disadvantage because of the more powerful radar.

That also increases the beam range profile. Show me a real source, such as Janes, FI, AVLeak, etc, that says the MKI is anywhere under 10m^2

.conversely show me a similar reputable source which says that specifically of the SU 30MKI (which is supposed to have increased composites in it's airframe). Again the point is that since such a credible source cannot be found for the rcs of the MKI, it would not be correcct to dismiss it as having the RCS of a regular flanker esp. when the contrary has been stated by different sources

The arguments regarding external weapons and RCS applies equally or more so to the SU-30, since it is larger and carries a proportionally larger warload. And both France and the US/UK have been putting a lot of effort into stealthing A2A weaponry over the last several years. With an AAM load only, no external tanks or bombs, the 0.1 M^2 RCS might be doubled at most. Only when you start adding bombs and external tanks will the RCS go up appreciably. (the 1000x was an exagerration, it's more like 100x for the Rafale)

and why would the Rafale not carry bombs and fuel tanks since it is built for the purpose of being multirole?

Yes, the N011 is a more powerful radar, but detection is still dependent on the quality of the return. It doesn't matter how much power you are sending out- the only thing that matters is how much comes back. The SU-30 is a beacon on radar, just like the F-15 is. There is no way to avoid it. On a head on shot, the radar is looking right down the intakes at the comperessor blades. NCTR can count the blades and identify the AC just from the return from the compressor.

the chances for higher quality returns increases dramatically when equipped with super powerful radar and the MKI Bars NO11M has NCTR capability

The USN has conducted operational sorties alongside the Rafale, and was impressed enough than the Rafales were given the lead slots, and F/A-18E's flew shotgun. That should tell you something.

similarly, i would like to see the opinion of the USN when it flies sorties with the SU 30MKI. Obviously they were quite impressed with even the SU 30K during Cope India, media hype aside.

I don't want to go into a detailed discussion on the missiles, I suggest you read the R-77 and AMRAAM and MICA threads on ACIG. But consider this- as I mentioned previously, the R-77 seeker has a 16km range against a 5m^2 target. This is from Vympel's own literature on the missile. Now, try to get a lock on a 0.1m^2 target. Range is a direct function of return strength- you are going to have to keep the target in the N011's gimbel limits until the missile is within a couple km, or you will lose lock (if the seeker will even lock at all). That means that you are very limited wrt evasive action. And the Typhoon or Rafale has AMRAAM or MICA, which are quite capable of tracking the SU-30 from 20-25km, and probably more.

sure, you are going to have to keep the radar on the MKI "on" until the terminal stage is reached, which by the way is no different from the Amraam. And how do you know that the Amraam/Mica will track the MKI from 20-25km? The Su also has some v.decent ecm and again it's rcs is unknown. But The R77 is not the only weapon the SU 30MKI carries, also I should think that a MKI is not going to fire just a single R77 and then keep quiet esp. if it gets the first look advantage. It would probly fire a salvo of R27/R77 upon detection and then press the advantage with other missiles (such as the R73). And let us not forget the R27, which many tend to brush off as useless. Here is a little info:
R-27R-"short burn" SARH variant. Range 43 NM. NATO ASCC AA-10 ALAMO-A.
R-27T-s.b. IR variant. Range 37.8 NM. ALAMO-B.
R-27ER-"long burn" SARH variant. Range 70 NM. ALAMO-C.
R-27ET-l.b. IR variant. Range 64.75 NM. ALAMO-D.
R-27EA-l.b. AR variant. Range 70 NM. Not in service but in development

err... what does the AMRAAM/Mica offer here wrt range?
But I do admit that if the Rafale/EF2000 fire first, it is going to be one big problem for the SU 30MKI considering that the AMRAAM has a longer seeker range and more powerful head. However, rumors are that a dutch a/f f16 found it extremely difficult to get a lock on a flanker.

On the other hand, the MKI may just decide to keep radar "off" and use IRST when up close. In case more than 1 mki are flying against a similar number of opponents, the advantage increases further for the mki since it can act as a mini awacs and guide its buddies silently until within IR range. Some of the criticism of the Russian missiles at ACIG and elsewhere are based on the Eritrea vs ethiopia conflict (a very poor standard to measure imho). Secondly, they almost fail to take into account newer production versions of these missiles, I'm sure this happens. Also, I would not treat lightly the opinion of the IAF (a very reputable and professional organization), which doesnt seem to be complaining about these missiles, which it operates. And the .pk rate of the R77 (and most russian missiles), which has been thoroughly criticized was around 83% when the chinese tested them. Not bad at all I would think. Again, the indians may v.well have israeli weapons added to this lot, possibly even meteor and quite certainly astra after complete development.

AMRAAM, and (IIRC) MICA also fly a lofted flight profile, which gives them a top-down look at the target (increasing the RCS), and more energy in the terminal maneuver. R-77 doesn't do this- it flies a purely kinetic profile.

does the r27 have lofted trajectory, it is said that it has "specializd trajectories" at sinodefence, which i know is not a v.reliable source. And the MICA does not even start coming into action until around 50 km (EM - SARH version) and 30km (IR - infrared version). don't see anything in it that the r73 cannot achieve or for that matter the r27

As far as comparitive ranges, I already touched on that, it's a function of the launch parameters,

and what about the propulsion, should we just completely forget that aspect of missile's effictiveness considering that rocket propulsion is the strength of the russians esp. compared to western counterparts? I s'pose aerodynamics also don't matter either. perhaps it is because of these latter reasons that the Russian missiles have such long ranges (obviously unimaginable to many)

so the stated ranges by manufacturers are worthless unless the launch parameters are compared at the same time. But I can tell you this- numbers like 70km are bullsh*t against a fighter sized target, especially a maneuvering one.

the stated range by the IAF for R77 is around 80km for HIGHLY manouverable targets! Go figure.

The hype about the latticed control surfaces is just that- hype. They are not lower drag, aerodynamics is aerodynamics. Lift=Drag. What they do offer is short throw actuaters. The US experimented with such control surfaces in the '60's and discarded them because they gave no real advantage. The lattice structure actually increases parasitic drag because the entire wetted surface is not an optimum airfoil (leading edges that are vertical to the airstream do not generate turning forces in a bank-to-turn missile).

why then would the russians go with such a feature I wonder? just stick to conventional design and reduce drag, no? One can 't help but get the feeling that the Russians have an upperhand in aerodynamics wrt a/c and missiles

Wrt, TVC, I never said it was not useful, only in the context that most people try to justify it- i.e. the mongoose/cobra/kulbit bullsh*t energy-killing airshow maneuvers as being useful in WVR engagements. That's a pile of horsesh*t.

cobra is not exactly bs in wvr, it can surely help in trying to acquire higher aoa while in pursuit of enemy a/c

TVC is useful when entering into the BVR engagement, because it allows the AC to carry supersonic speeds into the maneuver without bleeding off energy due to deflected control surfaces. This is why it's valuable in the F-22, since that AC is cruising at M1.7. It gives the pilot a tactical advantage, because he can decide whether to engage or break off and re-enter under more favorable conditions. It's also useful in keeping a damaged AC in the air- adaptive FBW coupled with TVC can make up for missing or damaged flight or control surfaces. This can mean the difference between punching out or getting back to where the AC can be repaired.

So don't claim that I ever said TVC was only useful in F-22's and not SU-30's, but the reasons have nothing to do with outmaneuvering a HOBS heater that can turn at 40-50 G's. That's a fool's argument.

The latter bit I agree with

Kind Regards,
USS.